Ronan fills every frame with a glow that no other actress of her generation appears to possess. Her obvious talent is elevated by a screen presence akin to that of a young Cate Blancett. It's a testament to her wonderful work here that the film suffers whenever she is not around. Tucci's killer may be too overtly sinister for the part, but the always reliable actor does a stellar job of making you hate him regardless. ( but an oscar nom)

I Didnt really connect with the material and buy the world that Susie finds herself in

I am appalled. Appalled by the good reviews this bonafide turkey sandwich received.

Please PLEASE explain to me what exactly was good, or I should say not terrible, about this complete and utter fail of a movie. I've seen some bad films over the past few years and I have to say this is one of the worst acted films and one of the worst told stories I've seen in a while. The Wolfman shines in comparison.

Anyway before I lose it, here's my review:

The trailers for Peter Jackson's latest may not have boasted any truly fascinating plot points but at least it looked good and had a decent enough cast, so how bad could it be? Turns out very. Very very bad indeed.

In many ways this is a film which was doomed from the start. When the director is miscast, the best you can hope for is a clunky but honorable attempt. After all, this is the guy who brought us horror classics such as Bad Taste and Braindead, fun comedy The Frighteners and of course the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Lovely Bones is by far the director's worst hour: a complete disaster from start to finish with some of the worst acting I've seen in a long time. Films like The Wolfman or Precious may have been overall uneven and clumsy affairs but at least they had some redeeming features about them. This, however, misses the mark on all accounts. The script is loathsome in that it adapts a novel in the dullest, most nonsensical way humanely possible, with dialogs so cringe-worthy they prompt nervous laughter and shame. Dumbass lines like "Salmon, like the fish" or "Of course it's beautiful: it's Heaven!" just make you wonder if a human being actually wrote the film or left his or her dog to do the work instead. None of the characters feel real or convincing in any way and Mark Wahlberg concludes his trilogy of terrible dramatic performances (The Happening, Max Payne) with another eye-popping stinker. Rachel Weisz somehow manages to find herself in another turkey and Susan Sarandon is wasted as a frankly useless and out-of-sync character. Stanley Tucci does his best to add some ACTING to the proceedings and for the most part does quite well (at least he comes off as genuinely creepy) but the fake teeth, silly hairdo and moustache makes it ridiculously blatant that this weirdo is a perv. He might have well have worn a sign around his neck saying "BAD GUY". Newcomer Saoirse Ronan also gives a decent enough performance for a child actor but when you're surrounded by complete ineptitude, it's normal to falter and suffer by the end of the picture, leaving her to become an annoying, whiny, goody-goody, irrelevant entity. Giving her a "paradise sidekick" who CAN'T ACT didn't help either.

Overall, Peter Jackson has fallen from very hgh and one can't help but feel nervous and unsettled at the idea of him directing a Tintin film. My fingers will be crossed for a miracle but after this turkey, I have lost a lot of hope.

I've always trusted film reviews in Empire and Total Film, because even if one gives a daft score you can normally depend on the other to balance it out. But they both gave this a 4-star positive review and it's clearly not that good. 3-stars I could handle, I would have given it 2. I'm disappointed, it's the first Peter Jackson film I haven't liked.

ok so it appears that many of you really hated this film havin read through pages of bad reviews. And I respect all of them apart from the review by 'Edward Nygma'. I'm sorry dude but ur arguement loses all credibility whn you complain the film has the line "susie salmon, like the fish" which is taken directly from the book u fool! Know the facts before you judge!! Anyway my opinion, this is very much a flawed and uneven film. I personally didn't think the comic side of Saranden was needed and the tone was never fuklly established what with the continiuos switch in character focus. BUT THIS ISN'T A BAD FILM! The acting is truly amazin from all involed and worth the admission fee alone. It has some fantastic set pieces especially the scene whn the younger sister breaks in to Harveys house. The scenes in "the inbetween" look amazin bt don't have enoungh of an emotional edge. However, this is countered superbly by Mark Whalbergs spellbinding decent in to hell. He may of made some bad mistakes in his time but give him the chance n he'll steal the film. In many respects he does if it wasn't for a deserved oscar nominated role from Tucci. Harvey is a terrfying the presence and the agonisingly drawn out death scene is a perfect example of his menacing presence he has over the intire film. It certainly isn't another Lord of the Rings, but it was never going to be. What it is, is an uneven and flawed film with some great set pieces and without doubt some of the best acting you will see this year!

I think empire got it right. At the end of the day the empire reviews, just like a;; reviews are opinion. I have never read the book by the way so I have no comparison but the film itself is visually stunning and despite being overly romanticised is still very touching. I say over romanticised because that's how it felt to me, but thinking of it as being seen through the eyes of a fourteen year old girl... well it makes a lot of sense. I didn't think any of the acting was bad, even mark woodenburg did a passable everyman.

ok so it appears that many of you really hated this film havin read through pages of bad reviews. And I respect all of them apart from the review by 'Edward Nygma'. I'm sorry dude but ur arguement loses all credibility whn you complain the film has the line "susie salmon, like the fish" which is taken directly from the book u fool! Know the facts before you judge!! Anyway my opinion, this is very much a flawed and uneven film. I personally didn't think the comic side of Saranden was needed and the tone was never fuklly established what with the continiuos switch in character focus. BUT THIS ISN'T A BAD FILM! The acting is truly amazin from all involed and worth the admission fee alone. It has some fantastic set pieces especially the scene whn the younger sister breaks in to Harveys house. The scenes in "the inbetween" look amazin bt don't have enoungh of an emotional edge. However, this is countered superbly by Mark Whalbergs spellbinding decent in to hell. He may of made some bad mistakes in his time but give him the chance n he'll steal the film. In many respects he does if it wasn't for a deserved oscar nominated role from Tucci. Harvey is a terrfying the presence and the agonisingly drawn out death scene is a perfect example of his menacing presence he has over the intire film. It certainly isn't another Lord of the Rings, but it was never going to be. What it is, is an uneven and flawed film with some great set pieces and without doubt some of the best acting you will see this year!

Um, what the hell are you talking about? What does it matter if that line is from the book or not? I never claimed it wasn't, YOU FOOL! I don't care if it's from the book, from the film, or wherever, it still sounds stupid. It's the type of line an adult writer thinks a child would say but which really doesn't feel genuine.

Why am I even arguing with someone who thought the acting was "truly amazin from all involved" and who thought Mark Wahlberg was...ahem..."spellbinding" ???As for Stanley Tucci, he was the only one in the whole film, along perhaps with Sarandon, who attempted to actually act. But his character was just unnecessarily over-pedo-ed, the mustache, the teeth, the combover, the dollhouses, the keyrings, the...standing alone at his front door for no reason. Film would have worked way better if Tucci had been more believable as a normal person, without all the bells and whistles rather than a blatantly obvious creep. And did no one see him build a hole-room in that field?

And I do know "the facts" little boy, I'm aware The Lovely Bones was based on a book. But books, as you know if you've ever read one, are not always good. And if the book is half as rubbish and, yes, BAD, as that film actually was, then I have absolutely no interest in reading it. Btw, what is the moral of that story? Don't bother finding out the truth because bad people will always get punished one way or another? Give. Me. An. Effing. Break.

ok so it appears that many of you really hated this film havin read through pages of bad reviews. And I respect all of them apart from the review by 'Edward Nygma'. I'm sorry dude but ur arguement loses all credibility whn you complain the film has the line "susie salmon, like the fish" which is taken directly from the book u fool! Know the facts before you judge!! Anyway my opinion, this is very much a flawed and uneven film. I personally didn't think the comic side of Saranden was needed and the tone was never fuklly established what with the continiuos switch in character focus. BUT THIS ISN'T A BAD FILM! The acting is truly amazin from all involed and worth the admission fee alone. It has some fantastic set pieces especially the scene whn the younger sister breaks in to Harveys house. The scenes in "the inbetween" look amazin bt don't have enoungh of an emotional edge. However, this is countered superbly by Mark Whalbergs spellbinding decent in to hell. He may of made some bad mistakes in his time but give him the chance n he'll steal the film. In many respects he does if it wasn't for a deserved oscar nominated role from Tucci. Harvey is a terrfying the presence and the agonisingly drawn out death scene is a perfect example of his menacing presence he has over the intire film. It certainly isn't another Lord of the Rings, but it was never going to be. What it is, is an uneven and flawed film with some great set pieces and without doubt some of the best acting you will see this year!

Um, what the hell are you talking about? What does it matter if that line is from the book or not? I never claimed it wasn't, YOU FOOL! I don't care if it's from the book, from the film, or wherever, it still sounds stupid. It's the type of line an adult writer thinks a child would say but which really doesn't feel genuine.

Why am I even arguing with someone who thought the acting was "truly amazin from all involved" and who thought Mark Wahlberg was...ahem..."spellbinding" ???As for Stanley Tucci, he was the only one in the whole film, along perhaps with Sarandon, who attempted to actually act. But his character was just unnecessarily over-pedo-ed, the mustache, the teeth, the combover, the dollhouses, the keyrings, the...standing alone at his front door for no reason. Film would have worked way better if Tucci had been more believable as a normal person, without all the bells and whistles rather than a blatantly obvious creep. And did no one see him build a hole-room in that field?

And I do know "the facts" little boy, I'm aware The Lovely Bones was based on a book. But books, as you know if you've ever read one, are not always good. And if the book is half as rubbish and, yes, BAD, as that film actually was, then I have absolutely no interest in reading it. Btw, what is the moral of that story? Don't bother finding out the truth because bad people will always get punished one way or another? Give. Me. An. Effing. Break.

I really don't have a problem with lines like the one mentioned, I have come across a lot of people who do speak like that. I genuinely enjoyed the film. What was good about it? It is visually stunning and mostly well acted, like I said before even whalburg wasn't completely shit, just really bland and vacant. Still you seem to hate the film so perhaps this will fall on deaf ears, or eyes.

As for the moral of the story... you sort of have a point, the film seemed to be saying don't waste your time on hate as it poisons you etc. But I found that rather weak to be honest.

personally i liked it, yes the scnes of Suzies personal heaven were maybe a bit over the top and filled with pointless speacial effects, btu this is something not fully described in the novel, but an important location none the less and something that needed to be seen, and as other posters have pointed out from the imagination of a 14 year old girl, so it works in this aspect. As for the rest of the film I was pleasantly suprised that it remained fairly faithful to the book, although felt that it had been sanitised a bit to cater for families

Peter Jacksons film the lovely bones is perfect in every aspect of film-making. Challenging story. Marvellous script. Unique cinematography. Incredible performances. Brilliant directing. Mesmerizing special effects. Sublime music. An incredible film that was largely over looked. Especially by the academy.

Peter Jacksons film the lovely bones is perfect in every aspect of film-making. Challenging story. Marvellous script. Unique cinematography. Incredible performances. Brilliant directing. Mesmerizing special effects. Sublime music. An incredible film that was largely over looked. Especially by the academy.

The Lovely Bones is a beautiful work of art, as simple as that. It is certainly the most courageous film of 2009, and is amazingly rewarding as a result. Its writing, from the team that brought us The Lord of the Rings nine years ago (has it really been that long?!), tackles themes, motifs and allusions that will leave you thinking, debating and possibly even crying. It has been ages since I have seen a film which grips and relates with its audience in the scope that this one does. Peter Jackson does an amazing job of bringing this difficult film to life; only a director of his stature can make The Lovely Bones the utterly unforgettable experience it is. Although the film does not present the stupendous difficulties as The Lord of the Rings did back in 2001 at first glance, a lesser director would have resulted in a disastrous shamble indeed. Moreover, the ensemble cast is perfect, with Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci simply stealing the show. Definitely one of the best films of 2009, The Lovely Bones is a mighty film that you will kick yourself for missing.

The Lovely Bones is an excruciatingly bad film. The vision of the afterlife is tacky and flashy and at times looks like middle earth. Susan Sarandon's comic iterlude cringe worthey and Stanley Tucci isnt at all convincing. Saoirse Ronan is a fine young actress but she needs to pick her roles more carefully.

All I can say is that this had some of the stupidest moments in movie history and I have to share them to get them of my chest. Why make the mother return at the moment the evidence is found and why would the daughter hold off on giving the evidence to her father immediately? Why does the Lindsay, the younger sister, keep looking through the book when she has just heard the killer return. Why would Suzie take a kiss instead of stopping the serial killer, thereby freeing him to kill again and again. This story is retarded and completely unbelievable and possibly the single most frustrating movie I have ever seen. And the first half hour was so promising. Oh and Susan Sarandon was a freaking joke. Why won't it allow me to give zero stars, after that mess and Peter Jackson's capabilities it doesn't deserve one star.

Okay, I haven't read the book before seeing The Lovely Bones but I'm sure there is plenty of others that are the same. Good pefomances from a great cast especially Mark Walhberg, Rachel Weiz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and Saorise Ronan. Beautiful and breath-taking scenery. Some gripping and emotional moments. But I didn't enjoy this film at all, in fact it made me angry of how it was left. I'm not going to spoil it to anyone who hasn't seen it but I was screaming at the screen during certain points of the film. Be weary when watching this, it may make you emotional and you may enjoy it but to others it can be a total waste of their time.

Okay, I haven't read the book before seeing The Lovely Bones but I'm sure there is plenty of others that are the same. Good pefomances from a great cast especially Mark Walhberg, Rachel Weiz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and Saorise Ronan. Beautiful and breath-taking scenery. Some gripping and emotional moments. But I didn't enjoy this film at all, in fact it made me angry of how it was left. I'm not going to spoil it to anyone who hasn't seen it but I was screaming at the screen during certain points of the film. Be weary when watching this, it may make you emotional and you may enjoy it but to others it can be a total waste of their time.

Empire magazine's review of The Lovely Bones is almost (although not quite) as off the mark as Dan Jolin's now infamous review of Liam Neeson's Taken. Don't be misled. The Lovely Bones is a cringeworthy, confused and appalling mess. Avoid.

This has properly divided opinion. Yes, there are some daft bits - the safe getting from the cellar to the car so easily, but phew what an effort to get it in the sink hole! Why not drive a little closer? Anyhoo, the music is absolutely fantastic, to use Cocteau Twins and Lizz Frazier from This Mortal Coil was genius. Also I really liked the acid trip "In Between" images which I'm guessing was the deal breaker for Jackson. It was way too long, hence the Lovely Bores. Lets keep our fingers crossed for a cinematic heaven that looks like that, rather than the lights just going down.

It's not a bad movie, just that it's crying out to be a much better one. Peter Jackson got a bit too disrtacted with the "in betweem" imagery that he didn't leave enough time to fully flesh out the characters. which is a shame because with the level of acting provided the story didnt' need all that CGI to propel it along.

and I know it's missing the point, but how does somebody make an under ground room without anybody noticing, and how did he move the safe?

Sorry,but this is awful-what was Jackson thinking?? Yes it's adapted from the book,but it completely loses the plot and misses the point. There is no emotional involvement with any of the characters despite the heavy plotline. They vary from wafer thin to the ridiculous.It is completely the fault of Jackson to squander the acting talents available here. As for the imagery,again,overloading us with visual nonsense that matched the mess of the writing. A grade a turkey.

Sorry,but this is awful-what was Jackson thinking?? Yes it's adapted from the book,but it completely loses the plot and misses the point. There is no emotional involvement with any of the characters despite the heavy plotline. They vary from wafer thin to the ridiculous.It is completely the fault of Jackson to squander the acting talents available here. As for the imagery,again,overloading us with visual nonsense that matched the mess of the writing. A grade a turkey.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is stunningly bad. People make fun of The Happening but at least that had an Ed Woodian charm, this was just...oh man...

Mr Nygma, I haven't even ventured into the insulting and disgusting world of Mr Jackson where raped and murdered children wander around in "heaven" with ridiculous images. Yes it was a book,but so was LOTR,without getting into what was in the book or what wasn't-this is a film. And it is completely awful. It would put Adam Sandler to shame.